Anti-establishment

Pauline Hanson TV special in Japan tomorrow

IMG_0371.JPG

TV Tokyo will broadcast a Pauline Hanson special tomorrow. Interesting to see how they portray her. The blurb is as follows:

いまオーストラリアでホームレスが増加しているという。シドニーでは1年で25%も急増、200人に1人がホームレスなのだ。その原因が移民だという。そんな移民を排斥しようという極右政党まで現れた。ポーリン・ハンソン率いるワンネーションだ。ポーリンはその過激な発言から「オーストラリアのトランプ」の異名を持つ。反移民・反イスラムを訴え、2016年の選挙で60万票を獲得した。

“Australia is witnessing an acceleration in homeless. Sydney has seen a 25% increase over the last year with 1 person in 200 now homeless. The reason is said to be immigration. There is now a extreme right wing party which seeks to boycott immigrants. It is the One Nation Party led by Pauline Hanson.  Due to her strong rhetoric she is being named the “Aussie Trump”. Her anti-immigrant anti-Islam stance won her 600,000 votes in the 2016 election.”

It will be interesting to see how she is portrayed by the Japanese media. It is quite rare to see Aussie politics make it to Japanese TV but it is telling to see that her views are making waves enough for it to be broadcast. If only Turnbull had such impact – well to tell the truth the only impact he had was sinking the Japanese subs deal which brought widespread negative press. This is how he was pilloried.

3 maps which explain a lot

IMG_0743The chart above shows the average % change in housing prices in the US by county today vs that in 2000 according to a Harvard study. The following maps show the results of the 2008 and 2016 election by county. Could this be yet another basic concept showing why the US voted the way they did last election?

2008 – a hope for change

IMG_0744

2016 – the last 8 years didn’t help – time to vote for wholesale change

IMG_0745.PNG

Feel free to draw your own conclusions. These three maps to me voice the disgruntled who remain destitute after all this time.

Is there any dignity at CNN?

IMG_0278.JPG

Is CNN channeling the Gestapo? Threatening to release the name of an individual who made fun of the network’s own self inflicted stupidity. While it seems ratings haven’t suffered so badly post the Russiagate saga, surely the “we reserve the right to publish his identity” is an unbridled threat. How does taking down a video that has gone viral and been shared eliminate the problem? All that trying to ban soemthing does is exacerbate the problem.

One has to wonder whether the person that posted the video lampooning the network is “truly remorseful” or whether he was intimidated under a spotlight, pumped full of sodium Pentothal while staring at CNN’s legal goons in tight leather gloves. Talk about drawing bad attention to itself.

Perhaps if CNN really wanted to avoid such ridicule, it might decide to focus on quality journalism not stir up a hornet’s nest of lies for ratings. Doesn’t the satisfaction of winning from hard work and dedication trump free riding? Like drug cheats in sport perhaps if one lies to oneself enough they are every bit the winner as those legitimate athletes.

There can be no sympathy for a network that gets pilloried for engaging in what amounts to doxxing individuals. The Trump video in its initial form has been around for ages yet no complaints were had because everyone knows WWF is stage cast. The majority of those that saw the CNN spoof version would see it for what it is – ridicule.

For CNN to turn it into a “inciting violence against journalists” is plain nonsense. Should Trump have sent it on Twitter? No. Was it presidential? No. Was CNN in the wrong for inventing stories to try to remove him? Yes. Are journalists’ lives in danger from the President when they line up at a White House press conference? No.

As the ancient Chinese proverb states, “before setting out on revenge, first dig two graves.”

How badly has CNN suffered since Russiagate fake news?

IMG_0730.JPG

Reality is that CNN set a ratings record In Q2 2017: It had its most-watched second quarter in network history across the 6 a.m. – 6 a.m stat. The network also delivered its best Q2 performance in the 25-54 demographic since 2003, Russiagate was working for rankings as the Q2 2016 comparables were strong on the back of pre presidential election town halls.

Despite these records CNN was the #3 cable news network for Q2 behind Fox (1.465mn) and MSNBC (886k) during the day. That said, CNN still managed to beat MSNBC in the total day demographic for the 13th consecutive quarter.

CNN more than doubled MSNBC in the 25-54 demographic and ranked No. 2 in total viewers behind FNC.

CNN produced a 10% jump in total prime time viewers and 19% lift in the key 25-54 age bracket vs Q2 2016. Total day was even stronger, 25% hike in total viewers and 39% among 25-54s.

Below are CNN’s Q2 2017average live-plus-same-day stats according to Nielsen:

Prime time (Mon-Sun): 1,055,000 total viewers & 363,000 (25-54)
Total Day (Mon-Sun): 788,000 total viewers  & 262,000 (25-54)

As of June 27 post the “nothing burger” the following was seen

Prime time (Mon-Sun): 970,000 (-8.1%) total viewers & 363,000 (25-54) (-1.9%)
Total Day (Mon-Sun): 726,000 (-7.9%) total viewers & 236,000 (25-54) (-10.0%)

IMG_0731

IMG_0729

As of June 29 the stats were

Prime time (Mon-Sun): 1.239mn (+13.2%) total viewers & 424,000 (25-54) (+16.8%)
Total Day (Mon-Sun): 818,000 (+3.8%) total viewers & 254,000 (25-54) (-3.1%).

While a few days do not a trend make it is interesting to see that viewership hasn’t collapsed since the open resignations of CNN staff who openly admitted they had made up a lot of the Russiagate story.

Perhaps it runs deeper. If you want to get a daily fix of Trump-hating on TV that isn’t nearly enough in WaPo or NYTimes print form then CNN ir MSNBC is still a viable place to feed it. Perhaps many of their viewers don’t actually want to hear the truth. Only the stuff that feeds their Trump derangement syndrome. It is hard to conclude a different answer when the network openly admits it is spewing lies to get ratings. Seems to be a strategy that is working.

Is Tommy Robinson in the minority with a #2 rank book on Amazon?

IMG_0711.PNG

There is no moral equivalence to be drawn here with this latest attack outside Finsbury mosque in London. Innocent people were mown down by a van driven by someone filled with rage and hate. Social media is already screaming “bigot, racist, terrorist, anti-Muslim, radical” but there is a much bigger point not being addressed. The social boiling point is being reached much more rapidly than the media will admit.  Tommy Robinson was accused across social media for inspiring anti-Muslim rhetoric and fueling this person to commit the crime. His tweets matched his long standing convictions and predictions. Perhaps everyone who has bought Tommy’s book “Enemy of the State”  (ranked #2 book on Amazon UK, #131 in Canada and #2375 in America & now $350 on paperback) could be a risk of commiting such acts if that is the generalization. Of course it is nonsense. By the measure of the sales success perhaps his views maybe more mainstream than the negative ‘extreme’ moniker that is often hurled at him.

Could it be argued that a growing number of people are growing sick and tired of random jihadi attacks and see this book as a guide on how the government isn’t  handling the problem? That was not a intended to be a fact checking laced comment rather pointing out that many people potentially share his supposed ‘patriotic’ view as demonstrated by the commerciality of his writing. This is no longer a pure jihadi problem but one that is now likely to become tit-for-tat terrorism which carries far more negative connotations.

Think beyond the all too common propensity to push prejudices by lashing out on social media with little thought to trying to understand the full arguments of alternative views. Do we take a book review from apologists as fact when most of those have probably never read his book cover to cover? I am reading it because I want to form my own judgement rather than rely on others’ bias. He has strong views but no better way than self vetting. I’ve read Mein Kampf in what must be the most appalling book ever written – grammatically and content-wise. For one whose family escaped the deaths camps of Poland, trying to understand the ravings of Hitler brought added perspective to the horror although some might conclude reading it is an endorsement. It is not.

Innocents are dead or injured in this attack on Fisnbury Park Mosque. If indeed Tommy has a minority view, most people wouldn’t buy his book. Are all the people that buy it racist? Even if one thinks they are then even more reason to say that the government’s current pandering to political correctness won’t solve these hate fueled events whether radical jihadis or right (left?) wing nutters. Do violent video games incite massacres? Are all ‘Brexiters’ a carbon copy of the man who murdered Labour politician Jo Cox days before the referendum?  Do we need to bring in Islamophobic legislation like Canada (Bill M-103) to shut down people expressing concern? No, No and No. Current policy approaches are having the opposite effect as this attack proves.

At the time of the Manchester bombing I warned that vigilantism would be an ugly side effect of endless political correctness. Coincidentally Robinson suggested similar views about the rise of vigilantes after that post in a vlog. Wasting a lot of time on what  motivated the driver to commit such a terrible crime is not necessary. It is obvious. It is a revenge attack. This is highly likely to be a person screaming out for something to be done about a problem he obviously doesn’t think is being handled properly by elected officials. He probably viewed himself as a vigilante even if that title might be an overreach in this instance.  This in no way defends his despicable actions. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter was often used by IRA sympathisers. Still it doesn’t in anyway condone killing or maiming innocents, no matter what ideology, faith, race or background they come from. It is plain awful. The majority of people would agree with that view.

Revenge attacks and reprisals only exacerbate a rapidly deteriorating relationship. However trying to say the perpetrator proves that not all such attacks are driven by radical Islam doesn’t address the core of the problem. The majority of good people (note a deliberate statement not to go down the identity politics line) want an end to innocent deaths at the hands of extremists but if free speech and the ability to tackle radicalism (wherever it lies) aren’t openly addressed these events will sadly continue. It should be totally in the interests of the majority of ‘good’ Muslims (I detest that phraseology) to want to stop radicals from collectivising their faith with what they perceive is the wrong interpretation. Common sense would say they are the most important link in the chain to weed out those who want to kill in the name of Allah. They need to be front and centre of the debate.

What the UK government (and other governments) have created is a monster of their own making. Candles, flowers, lit monuments, avatars, expressions of sympathy and ‘love conquers hate’ posts dodge the need to have a serious debate on the problem. Now we have seen first hand a real openly targeted revenge attack in the UK, people need less sanctimonious posturing on social media and focus their energies on truly understanding what is at stake. That is to ditch the liberal hand-wringing and have an open debate on the problem. Robinson’s book isn’t selling in the volumes it is by chance. Politicians should pay attention to this trend. It is not about arguing about whether he is right or wrong but noting the simmering underbelly of a growing number of people fed up with inaction. This is the end of the beginning not the beginning of the end.

NATO Facts and why Macron’s arrogance is no better than Trump’s

IMG_0141.PNG

While social media splashes around a US contribution to total NATO spend of 73% it in reality is a third of that. Only the USA and UK spend over and above NATO commitments as outlined in the chart above. Even the Greeks meet half the requirement! Germany is below not only NATO guidelines but the media would never tell you that. Trump has a point. In fact the reason much of the military spending numbers below the requirement stems more from inefficiency than anything else.

What many fail to understand is that salaries and benefits (housing, education and healthcare) for military staff tend to consume 3/4s of the budget. Procurement is a dog’s breakfast and influenced by age of fleets, battalions, interoperability and so forth. While NATO isn’t exactly group buy the us wins by default of having access to the best cost/performance equipment allowing better bang for the buck. Little Estonia can’t get the same economies of scale.

The “contribution” (click here) question is clouded by two things. Under Obama, the US has cut its NATO contribution from 5.29% of GDP when he took office to 3.6%. NATO Europe had met the minimum expected contribution of 2% but this has slumped from the tech bubble collapse of 2000 to 1.47% today which has meant the only thing keeping NATO’s overall budget above target has been Uncle Sam!

IMG_0142.PNG

So once again social media muddles a message. It takes 10 seconds to go on NATO’s website and fact check.

Instead the media is more focused on pointless clickbait on whether Trump can hold Melania’s hand without being swatted away or who won the vigorous handshake contest – he or Macron. In fact Macron’s deliberate snub Of Trump when he met all the leaders spoke volumes. He made no conscious effort to shake his hand first. He made a point of sucking up to his EU cronies first and spent needless time making worthless chitchat before even acknowledging the leader of the strongest nation on earth. We shouldn’t be surprised. Best have Trump inside the tent p1ssing out than outside p1ssing in.

Even if they want to delegitimize Trump they play a silly game. Much like business leaders being bullied on social media to leave Trump’s business council (Uber chickened out), the EU plays a dangerous game of isolating Trump. If they want to prevent him from being the “unhinged” orange buffoon they think he is they’d do much better to be welcoming, accommodating and flattering his eminence. That way they can bring balance and find common ground. They show no signs of even beginning to try. By snubbing him they shouldn’t be surprised if he acts independently. Yet Macron acts no better than Trump and the media lavishes praise on the exact same antics they crucify The Donald over. Typical double standards.

Be careful what you wish for! The world needs a healthy US and stunts like this only fray the lines of trust and partnership further. Sure, the America First policy stance is affronting but if the EU want to expedite the process then keep up the Trump bashing. It doesn’t mean Trump bumping (hey Trudeau did it in Canada to a female member of parliament) other dignitaries shows good character but he knows he’s being ridiculed and the media sees it as their only form of attack. The problem is they forget 75% of Republicans STILL approve of his job performance.  He may only be doing a C+ on performance in office but he isn’t anywhere near the F- portrayed by the media.

If Trump is so stupid how come the media keep getting fooled? Now they demand an insurance payout

IMG_0672.JPG

I used to read Der Spiegel. I even paid for a subscription but eventually the journalism lost its edge. This week’s article calling for Trump’s removal makes my decision sound. Read the following section several times and honestly ask yourself is this journalism? Put aside personal views of the President and objectively look at what the article ‘Donald Trump is a menace to the world’ written by Klaus Brinkbäumer is suggesting, if not demanding.

“He is a man free of morals. As has been demonstrated hundreds of times, he is a liar, a racist and a cheat. I feel ashamed to use these words, as sharp and loud as they are. But if they apply to anyone, they apply to Trump. And one of the media’s tasks is to continue telling things as they are: Trump has to be removed from the White House. Quickly. He is a danger to the world.”

So how would you suggest we do it? No, that is not an option. Should we ignore the democratic process by which he was elected?  Should we ignore the fact that even if he was a ‘liar, a racist and a cheat’ people voted in full knowledge of all of his ‘pussy grabbing antics’? The problem with this type of article is that it ignores reality on so many fronts. As I’ve written many times, if you are not a citizen of a country your input on their citizens’ voting intentions is irrelevant. Essentially what you are pleading for is the same as making a willingly high risk investment in a stock which goes bust then complaining to your broker you were misled and ask for your money back.

Elections are much like stock markets. Your voting intention is akin to investing in your country. In the case of America you had two stocks to choose form. One was the hedge of the other. If you wanted to reinvest in the diminishing returns of the last 40 years you bought Clinton Inc. If you wanted to bet on higher risk with potentially higher high return with a start up you voted for Trump Corp.  The media were slimeball stockbrokers trying to persuade investors (voters) to buy into the safety of Clinton Inc because they knew that the commission pay-off would be larger for them. However investors had enough of struggling through decades of exceptional losses, downgrades, dividend cuts and incompetent CEOs. Even worse they got sick and tired of the shareholder meetings where CEO Obama would talk about how successful his stewardship had been when an increasingly dissatisfied shareholder base kept on checking their statements and questioning the dud investment let alone disapproving of his suggested successor.

Mr Brinkbaumer, your article is exactly the problem with the media. You claim the media’s task is to ‘continue telling things as they are’ but you’ve failed on so many levels so many times that your trust rating is even lower than President Trump which stands in the early 40% range. The problem is that the only insurance you can buy in politics is the opposition. None other exists because the premiums would be too high and the payouts too low.

What your article painfully overlooks is that had the previous mob, who no doubt you think is the solution, was actually the problem. That 40 years of painful neglect led to record numbers on welfare, food stamps and income inequality. The investors knew that backing Clinton Inc, whose entire manifesto spoke to helping the needy that had been neglected by her own party (by deduction including the man she intended to replace), was such a palpable untruth that had the Democrats so brazenly lied in a stock prospectus she would really have been jailed.

After Comey’s decision to testify, my social media feeds lit up like a Christmas tree. I deliberately held back from making any call at the time because there was no evidence other than speculation. Yet social media had already made up its mind – “impeachment! – the orange buffoon is going down!” “The smoking gun!” Of course it turns out that the knee-jerk reaction was proved a falsehood. The media once again let its subjectivity rule the day. Like Rachel Maddow’s scoop on his taxes. She sold it as grounds to get him on tax evasion like Al Capone in The Untouchables. She essentially said “we’ve got the book keeper.” Yet she was gunned down in the elevator by her own leftist journos. You know when the media attacks its own that even it from time to time has flashes of objectivity, albeit too brief because lessons are never learned.

Sadly for the rest of the world, as much as we may despise Trump (he has flaws) and protest at his actions we have absolutely no rights to lynch a democratically elected President much less encourage his downfall. This type of reckless behavior is indeed more disturbing. It essentially says you don’t respect the democratic rights of Americans. What is worse is it the same downright condescending attitude people had during the elections that completely ignored the plight of those that voted for him remains. I remember reading one article suggesting that there be an intelligence test required to have voting rights.  That is totalitarian behaviour if there ever was!

The leftist media continues to forget that the one sure way to help him do another 4 years is to keep up the same broken record dialogue. Indeed in the next 3+ years the Americans will have the opportunity to sack him if indeed they see a better alternative. Trump was always the start-up IPO bet. American voters knew full well he was a risk and they took it. His volatile stock performance is not a big surprise.

Klaus, you conveniently forget that Trump is a by-product of decades of neglect. Had the past four decades of the incumbent political class done a sound enough job he never would have seen the light of day. Instead of putting blame on the causes you simply place it all on him. Instead of some introspection on asking why he is where he is you can’t remove yourself from the group think of attack dogs. That anything he may achieve will be discredited and anything he does wrong will be given full thermonuclear uranium tipped coverage. That my dear friend is shame on you.

It would be nice to see some balance in coverage because if you don’t social media will drag up example after example for you further discrediting your supposed ‘telling things as they are’. We must all remember that digital media has a half-life of infinity. Is it any wonder 25% of the workforce in media has been culled in recent years. It isn’t that advertising revenues are falling it is because you don’t provide enough value for advertisers to warrant posting ads in your publication. Guaranteed if the journalism attracted readers the ad revenue would climb with it.

So once again, the bigger danger to the world is you not him. We should never encourage the overthrow of democratically elected governments because we dislike the outcome. Don’t forget that Clinton had 99% of the mainstream media on her side, leaked debate questions to give her an advantage, a pussy-grabbing video against her opposition and more but still lost. Why? The attitude of expecting a coronation and frankly Hillary Clinton didn’t put in the work.

Suppose no dirt is found on Trump? That constant media mud slinging fails to stick. Evidence surely that maybe he is just a brash, uncouth, narcisstic bully rather than someone that must be removed as a danger to the world. Sure, he doesn’t exactly act in a manner very befitting of the most powerful office in the world but he got there legitimately.  Indeed if he is as unhinged as you imagine surely Pyongyang would be under a mushroom cloud and Assad would be a victim of SEAL Team 6. In fact you might point out that the incredible weakness of his predecessor on foreign policy makes Trump’s more assertive stance a welcoming relief rather than a terrifying prelude to WW3.

Your article is so typical of the snowflake culture. The type of attitude that seeks to ban people from making addresses at universities, once the cradle of free speech. You ignore what you don’t want to hear and pass judgement on those who fail to hear you. Once you learn to listen to others you may find that you come to understand why even people like Van Jones can eventually see why Trump won’t be outed so easily. For indeed if he is as big a fool as everyone makes out the media won’t be needed to point it out. It will be painfully clear and in 2018 Americans will get a trial IPO and 2020 the opportunity to buy or sell stock in Trump Corp.

I should thank you for this article for helping confirm why I didn’t bother renewing my subscription.